B
buffalo
Guest
Certainly not in science class. It can be taught in philosophy class.
- Status
D
Dan123
Guest
That doesn’t tell us how we can recognize design in nature, that just tells us to assume it is designed without any way to know if we’re right or wrong.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Indeed they could. And better, as they were created directly by divinely inspired forces rather than through the clumsy mediation of man. So, if everything was designed, what makes the design of a living thing different from the design of a non-living thing? I thought this was where we came in. The difference, I understand, is in levels of complexity. So we are back to the starting point of the now closed thread - how can one objectively tell, without reference to some pre-existing example, that one structure is more complex than another?
A
Aloysium
Guest
If we look at our own being, the perceptions, feelings, and thoughts, the physiological processes that make up our existence as living organisms, as well as our capacities to act, as we are doing here, individual selves in relation to what is other, all one, we find it to be clearly more complex than a simple hydrogen atom, whose existence consists of a number of properties determining its interactions with other material substances, which are components within the totality of our being. That’s a pretty complex sentence actually, containing too much information for one thought. A simpler statement would be that we intuit such things. One either knows, or one doesn’t.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Am I alone in thinking that it is possible to intuit that the Mount Rushmore faces are designed, but not that they are more complex than the surrounding rock. To me they look to have been smoothed into patterns that make them, intuitively, less complex. How does that work?
A
Aloysium
Guest
Good point. I suppose it is less chaotic which could be described as being less intricate and complex. A glass window pane would appear to be less complex than the pile of sand that made it. On the other hand what goes into making it includes and is more involved than the effects of water and wind that created the sand. It depends on how one defines something, I guess. Less random might in fact be a way to identify something complex, because order would have had to be imposed, and whatever did that would be of a higher order than the simple activity of stuff doing what it does. That said, the word “complex” is a bit ambiguous, it’s meaning complex.
A couple of additional thoughts:
Interestingly, the truth is usually very simple although it can sound very complex when we don’t get it or try to explain it to someone who doesn’t catch what we mean.
There is a complexity in the arrangements of components that go into the making of the person who is a unity, simply one being.
A couple of additional thoughts:
Interestingly, the truth is usually very simple although it can sound very complex when we don’t get it or try to explain it to someone who doesn’t catch what we mean.
There is a complexity in the arrangements of components that go into the making of the person who is a unity, simply one being.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Please be advised that this is no longer my position - I recanted it weeks ago. Do try and keep up, old chap.
In effect, they have been experimenting with evolution - they’ve been exploring the limits of variations, mutations and selection.
Some dog, cat, fish, chicken, flower breeders, for example, have been breeding for aesthetic reasons, not for serving domestic purposes - which means they push the boundaries to try and come up with something different, even bizarre, just for the sake of it. They even resort to unnatural techniques, such as inbreeding. But no matter what they do, they can’t produce anything beyond the original kind. All this is empirical evidence of stasis - not story-telling and fantasy, but hard facts.
What would a breeding experiment in evolution look like? It would look pretty much like what some of these breeders have been doing for thousands of years.
The fossil record isn’t empirical evidence of evolution, for starters. There may be more than one explanation for whatever is found in the fossil record.
Furthermore, the many grey-areas and uncertainties inherent in the science of paleontology leave plenty of room for story-telling and nonsense. It’s hardly a science abounding with empirical evidence.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The design signal is stronger than from the background design.
Going back to Mt Rushmore. The “designed” uncut rocks are the base signal. The faces are the emergent strong signal. The information content of the faces is magnitudes greater than the uncut rocks.
Going back to Mt Rushmore. The “designed” uncut rocks are the base signal. The faces are the emergent strong signal. The information content of the faces is magnitudes greater than the uncut rocks.
B
buffalo
Guest
They have high FSCI. The information content is very high.
G
Glark
Guest
It seems complexity is in the eye of the beholder. To me, a human face looks more complex than a rock.
(Another example (maybe): Scraping a cricket ball with sandpaper is more complex (thus requiring more intelligence) than rubbing said ball on trousers.)
(Another example (maybe): Scraping a cricket ball with sandpaper is more complex (thus requiring more intelligence) than rubbing said ball on trousers.)
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
I can accept that. What’s the base signal which you compare all of nature to, to determine that it was designed?
D
Dan123
Guest
You’ve highlighted the issue with complexity, the definition. For some the complexity would be the contrast between the faces and the natural stone. Even people who think the stone was designed seem to agree the faces are … I don’t know more designed? Not sure what the argument is yet.
But if we extend the idea that smooth objects contain less geometry and are therefore simpler, the least designed object would be a perfectly smooth sphere. And yet creating a perfectly smooth sphere would be an incredible task, at least in execution, the design would be simple.
But if we extend the idea that smooth objects contain less geometry and are therefore simpler, the least designed object would be a perfectly smooth sphere. And yet creating a perfectly smooth sphere would be an incredible task, at least in execution, the design would be simple.
G
Glark
Guest
Actually, ToE contains so many faults, it should be taught as an example of what bad/junk science looks like.
And it could be used in a sociology class an example of the power of mass brainwashing.
G
Glark
Guest
Not everything can be measured or defined or calculated. Some things are ineffable.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am thinking it is much like background noise.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. More design has a stronger signal (not amplitude or power but content)
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Oh I’m so sorry, I didn’t notice. I wonder what made you change your mind? Perhaps you’ll change it again soon.
May there? Oh, good.
Splendid. How can this be demonstrated, other than by reference to known images?
Perhaps you’re correct. But how can I tell? I can understand that high and low FSCI can be relative concepts, like tall and short, but how do we measure it at all?
Absolutely correct. One’s man beauty is another man’s ugliness and all that. But buffalo seems to be saying that FSCI is a measurable concept, with its values of high and low, and therefore, once one accepts the basis upon which the measurement is founded, an objective value. Over the last few days we have agreed that both the cliff wall and the carvings upon it are designed, one by weathering, according to God’s laws of physics, and one by carving, also by God’s laws of physics but mediated by the brain of man. It seems that one can tell which is which by some measure of complexity, or by some measure of the information it carries. If these measures are illusory, then all the hoo-ha about complexity and design boils down to “I think this” and “I think that”, and my understanding is as good as yours.
If we move into living examples, things get even more complicated. I think an elephant is designed in the same way a cliff is designed, according to God’s laws of physics, while a watch is designed by God’s laws of physics mediated by the brain of man.
B
buffalo
Guest
A six foot tall man is one foot taller than a five foot. One foot is the answer.Perhaps you’re correct. But how can I tell? I can understand that high and low FSCI can be relative concepts, like tall and short, but how do we measure it at all?
Glark:
M
mVitus
Guest
So all humans are designed. But some humans are more designed than others?
B
buffalo
Guest
I was answering the post on how to measure a signal difference.
The signal difference between a human and a rock is magnitudes different in terms of FSCI. Between Adam and Eve - no difference except minor form and function.
Evo’s do claim certain populations are more evolved, even smarter and powerful enough to justify enslaving or killing off lesser evolved. That should give any Catholic TE grave concern.
- Status